Wednesday, August 27, 2008
A Tale of Two Adaptations
While we were in Provo for Education Week, we decided to sample the theatrical offerings BYU was putting out there for us. There were two musicals playing at BYU last week, both based on books that are near and dear to many Mormons' hearts: First Nephi and Pride and Prejudice.
Neither one was an actual BYU production, though - the kids are all out of class and nowhere to be seen. "With Mine Own Hand" was written and produced by a group of amateur Mormons from Portland, Ore., and "Pride and Prejudice" was written by some BYU alums and produced by the SCERA Center in Orem (where it ran for a week or two before moving to BYU campus). Both being somewhat non-professional creations and productions, I was interested to see how they turned out.
I learned that not all non-professional creations are created equal.
The big difference between the two shows, and the main reason I liked one of them far more than the other, was in the conception behind the adaptaion. The creators of "With Mine Own Hand" were trying so hard to convey the truth and light of the Book of Mormon that they forgot that they were putting on a stage play. On the other hand, the creators of "Pride and Prejudice" were able to change and chop Austen's busy novel (a novel that resulted in a 6-hour A&E movie, mind you) into a play that built up characters, moved the plot along through various devices, and even paused every now and then for a song.
I kid you not: at least a third of the total running time of "With Mine Own Hand" is a guy (Old Nephi) sitting at a table in a spotlight on an otherwise completely dark stage, reading the exact words of the Book of Mormon to you. Minus the funny headband,* you get that in Family Home Evening. The other two-thirds of the show is when other actors (including Young Nephi) act out the stories he's telling you. It was clear the writers had no idea what is and what is not interesting on stage when they decided what to have the actors portray, and what to have the narrator just talk about. Nephi breaks his bow: narrated in front of a black stage. Nephi talks to his brothers about whether they have inquired of God: acted out. Nephi gives a powerful lecture to his brothers about the power of God and sends an actual shock through their bodies: narrated in front of a black stage. Nephi is shown Christopher Columbus in vision by an angel: acted out by an angel and Nephi pretending to see something. At least Zoram was worth a chuckle (his story is pretty hilarious when you think about it).
"Pride and Prejudice," on the other hand, was a fabulous adaptation. I don't have very much to say about it, because it was so good. I felt that the characters each got their due, the action was moved along by dialogue rather than scenes in order to save time - for example, Lizzie's tour of Pemberley (which would have been boring to act out) was just referred to rather than shown. The songs were catchy. And best of all, the writers gave the faintest inkling of an alteration to Mr. Darcy's character from the way Austen wrote him that almost - almost - made me realize what the circumstances could have been in which Mr. Darcy would come across as a sympathetic character to me. I left wishing they would have expanded some of his soliloquy songs to not just say how he is drawn to Lizzie, but to go a step further and say that because he is drawn to her, he's going to have to put away his pride and his prejudice and change his nature and stop being such a jerk. In the book and all the other adaptations I've seen, Darcy is just a jerk from beginning to end. But in this production, there was a glimmer of someone who realizes he's been a jerk and wants to stop being a jerk. That's the Darcy I want to get to know better. That's someone interesting and worth liking. But alas!
The moral of the story? Don't be so wedded to your source material that you forget what you're doing: entertaining an audience on a stage.
* I blame Arnold Friberg for, among other Mormon artistic ruts, the fact that Nephi is never depicted without a headband, and rarely depicted with a shirt.
Neither one was an actual BYU production, though - the kids are all out of class and nowhere to be seen. "With Mine Own Hand" was written and produced by a group of amateur Mormons from Portland, Ore., and "Pride and Prejudice" was written by some BYU alums and produced by the SCERA Center in Orem (where it ran for a week or two before moving to BYU campus). Both being somewhat non-professional creations and productions, I was interested to see how they turned out.
I learned that not all non-professional creations are created equal.
The big difference between the two shows, and the main reason I liked one of them far more than the other, was in the conception behind the adaptaion. The creators of "With Mine Own Hand" were trying so hard to convey the truth and light of the Book of Mormon that they forgot that they were putting on a stage play. On the other hand, the creators of "Pride and Prejudice" were able to change and chop Austen's busy novel (a novel that resulted in a 6-hour A&E movie, mind you) into a play that built up characters, moved the plot along through various devices, and even paused every now and then for a song.
I kid you not: at least a third of the total running time of "With Mine Own Hand" is a guy (Old Nephi) sitting at a table in a spotlight on an otherwise completely dark stage, reading the exact words of the Book of Mormon to you. Minus the funny headband,* you get that in Family Home Evening. The other two-thirds of the show is when other actors (including Young Nephi) act out the stories he's telling you. It was clear the writers had no idea what is and what is not interesting on stage when they decided what to have the actors portray, and what to have the narrator just talk about. Nephi breaks his bow: narrated in front of a black stage. Nephi talks to his brothers about whether they have inquired of God: acted out. Nephi gives a powerful lecture to his brothers about the power of God and sends an actual shock through their bodies: narrated in front of a black stage. Nephi is shown Christopher Columbus in vision by an angel: acted out by an angel and Nephi pretending to see something. At least Zoram was worth a chuckle (his story is pretty hilarious when you think about it).
"Pride and Prejudice," on the other hand, was a fabulous adaptation. I don't have very much to say about it, because it was so good. I felt that the characters each got their due, the action was moved along by dialogue rather than scenes in order to save time - for example, Lizzie's tour of Pemberley (which would have been boring to act out) was just referred to rather than shown. The songs were catchy. And best of all, the writers gave the faintest inkling of an alteration to Mr. Darcy's character from the way Austen wrote him that almost - almost - made me realize what the circumstances could have been in which Mr. Darcy would come across as a sympathetic character to me. I left wishing they would have expanded some of his soliloquy songs to not just say how he is drawn to Lizzie, but to go a step further and say that because he is drawn to her, he's going to have to put away his pride and his prejudice and change his nature and stop being such a jerk. In the book and all the other adaptations I've seen, Darcy is just a jerk from beginning to end. But in this production, there was a glimmer of someone who realizes he's been a jerk and wants to stop being a jerk. That's the Darcy I want to get to know better. That's someone interesting and worth liking. But alas!
The moral of the story? Don't be so wedded to your source material that you forget what you're doing: entertaining an audience on a stage.
* I blame Arnold Friberg for, among other Mormon artistic ruts, the fact that Nephi is never depicted without a headband, and rarely depicted with a shirt.
Comments: Post a Comment
